Conservatives would respect Obama more if he took a principled stand against a corrupt Iranian regime by doing its bidding.

The same conservatives who mere months ago applauded their candidate’s rendition of “Barbara Ann” are now criticizing Obama for refusing to meddle in internal Iranian affairs: “[He] has only a smidgen of a chance left to get on the right side of history—either he starts acting like the leader of the free world, or he’s a quisling of thugocracies everywhere.” To say that Obama risks putting himself on the wrong side of history suggests that you know enough about that history to distinguish between its sides, even though you don’t even know there are always more than two of them. Consider howincoherentlyconservatives have responded to official Iranian propaganda:

Iran accused the United States on Wednesday of “intolerable” meddling in its internal affairs, alleging for the first time that Washington has fueled a bitter post-election dispute . . . The Iranian government summoned the Swiss ambassador, who represents U.S. interests in Iran, to complain about American interference, state-run Press TV reported. The English-language channel quoted the government as calling Western interference “intolerable.”

That government forces accuse America of meddling in the face of Obama’s tepid public statements is not, as conservatives would have it, evidence that because the accusation will be made, we might as well meddle. It indicates that the Iranian government recognizes how politically efficacious the accusation of American intervention in Iranian electoral politics is, which means Victor David Hanson and like–mindedconservatives are urging Obama to take a principled stand by playing directly into the hands of the Iranian regime. Ahmadinejad and his supporters would love nothing more than for Obama to read the lines they scripted for him.

But why are conservatives encouraging Obama to do exactly that? Because, unlike him, they are deeply and proudly ignorant of the weight of history. This ignorance is what leads Karl to complain that German Chancellor Merkel and French President Sarkozy beat Obama to the moral high ground, even though he quotes the reason the French and Germans can condemn the apparent electoral fraud and America cannot:

“Either way we are going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States,” [Obama] added.

Because Germany and France do not have a history of meddling in Iranian electoral politics, they can criticize the election results without creating the appearance that they have a vested interest in their outcome. The Wall Street Journal is similarly clueless:

Yesterday he invoked the CIA’s role in the 1953 coup against Iranian leader Mohammad Mossadeq to explain his reticence. “Now, it’s not productive, given the history of the U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling—the U.S. President meddling in Iranian elections,” Mr. Obama said. As far as we can tell, the CIA or other government agencies aren’t directing the protests or bankrolling Mr. Mousavi.

The issue isn’t whether America’s actually bankrolling the opposition party, but whether it appears to be; if it does, it undermines the legitimacy of the same movement the conservatives ostensibly support. The editorial staff at the WSJ doesn’t understand the depth of Iranian mistrust of American policy especially on the issue of Iranian elections. But the most eloquent proponent of elevating ignorance to the status of fact is the de facto voice of American conservativism:

And he said yesterday, “[i]t’s not productive, given the history of US-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling.” We have to know what this means, “given the history of US-Iranian relations.” What history? Is he talking about the coup when we put the Shah in there in ’53 that he apologized for? Is that what he means? Is he so handcuffed to defend liberty and those who seek it because of what happened 65 years ago? What’s holding Obama back from standing up for freedom? Standing up for freedom is “meddling”? It has to be understood. What was he talking about? What is this history? What is it?

That Limbaugh’s argument moves by dint of unanswered rhetorical questions is damning enough—neither he nor his audience knows the answers to those questions—but the fact that, even if he knew what had happened, he would still consider it irrelevant because it happened 65 years ago. This claim that history can expire is indicative of a strain of stupid to which those who regularly complain about the “re-FDRing of America [via] the New New Deal” should be immune. Limbaugh fears nothing more than the revival of policies more than 65 years old, yet is incapable of understanding why the Iranian people may harbor a grudge against a nation that took liberties with its internal governance until 1979?

Limbaugh’s questions amount to little more than magical thinking thrust into face of empirical evidence. We know that Ahmadinejad and his allies believe the appearance of American meddling is a powerful political cudgel; to this fact, conservatives respond that 1953 was a long time ago. We know that Ahmadinejad and his allies are actively working to manufacture evidence of American meddling; to this fact, conservatives reply that Obama should do their work for them.

This is officially an award-winning blog

HNN, Best group blog: "Witty and insightful, the Edge of the American West puts the group in group blog, with frequent contributions from an irreverent band.... Always entertaining, often enlightening, the blog features snazzy visuals—graphs, photos, videos—and zippy writing...."

You’re free to disagree with me, but I think that the particular types of idiocies evinced by ideologues in a particular historical moment are worth tracking in real-time . . . because if they aren’t, people like me are forced to come along 100 years later and do it anyway.

Plus, I haven’t seen anyone point out that conservatives want Obama to do exactly the same thing that some Iranian Goebbels wants him to, so even if I’m merely pointing out that conservatives are idiots, I’m still planting a flag in virgin soil.

I have no doubt that much of the conservative response stems from ignorance of the past. Pure political cynicism probably plays a part, as well, don’t you think? When Tehran finally – and violently – stamps out these protests, you know damn well that Limbaugh, McCain, and whoever else will inevitably say, “Obama failed to support freedom. Tyrrany triumphs again.” Great fodder for the next election.

To think that “it all ended 56 years ago” is to ignore more recent history. When the Shah leaves, he ends up in the USA… and that “says something” about the ‘history’ that you didn’t see… just like “Baby Doc” Duvalier leaving for exile in Paris, on an American Air Force jet.
^..^

There may not be a conservative here to point out one obvious problem with your argument, but let me play devil’s advocate. Limbaugh is an “entertainer” not some respected intellectual. Democratic rhetoric aside, if you want to have a serious discussion, ignore the man.

A more fruitful discussion might be obtained if we were to discuss the curiously annoying concept of American exceptionalism/evangelism that repeatedly creeps into our foreign policy and is shared by ideologues on both the left and the right.

Why? Millions of Republican voters take his views seriously, which means that — though they sometimes try to stand at arm’s length — there are a lot of elected Republican “leaders” who choose to use his themes and rhetoric. Until some of them successfully distance themselves from him — instead of apologizing after invoking that “entertainer” theme — there’s no meaningful difference.

“Democratic rhetoric aside, if you want to have a serious discussion, ignore the man.

He’s an entertainer who cannot be crossed by Republican politicians. It’s a shame they’ve hitched their stars to his, but it’s not SEK’s fault that they did so.”

Okay, let me rephrase and substitute “intelligent” in lieu of “serious”. Limbaugh’s rhetoric is meant to appeal to the lowest common denominator of conservative paranoia and, while cultural atavism might have some appeal to those of a certain socio/psychological bent, it is ultimately pointless to attempt to fashion a “reasonable” argument against a point of view that is essentially irrational. Hopefully, some day the Limbaugh wing of the Republican Party will branch off like the Anti-Masons, Know-Nothings, Dixiecrats and George Wallace’s American Independent and just “fade away” like some bad dream. In the meantime, there is an issue here that has broader application to American foreign policy in general and, absent the atavistic appeal to liberal paranoia, might be more fruitful intellectually.

I don’t think it’s wise to subscribe to Limbaugh’s self-designation as an “entertainer.” He hides behind that, to a degree, but the fact is he makes arguments and asserts analytical propositions galore. But the point is, I think, that he functions less as a molder of the party platform or as a policy wonk, and more as an identifier and magnifier of emotions that are otherwise latent or subdued in a portion of the US population. He “pumps” people up–a bit like a pep rally before the game. His mode is–as we would expect–anger, and in that he taps into a broad stream of psycho-social attitudes, one that, contra DaKooch, we are likely to have with us for a very long time. I think, DaKooch, you’re right to connect his appeal to the earlier movements you mention (and others should be added: anti-missions attitudes in the antebellum south, populism in its various forms, the KKK of the 1920s, what John Burnham has called “lower-order parochialism [oooh . . . did he actually say that?], etc.), but I think those movements fit less well precisely because of their marginality. Anger and resentment against snooty elites is a huge part of American culture, and the growth of government and the ubiquity of the media means more people are provoked by these dynamics now than ever before. It’s roughly analogous to the way globalization provokes traditionalists into rebellion or insurgency. A Limbaugh helps folk who are prone to such a reaction, but would be pretty passive about it on their own, to identify and blame the perpetrators, and he gives voice to and legitimates their passions.

Firesign Theater were, arguably, more than entertainment. They helped to create and reinforce a mood of skepticism/cynicism towards various authorities that had significant political consequences. (Benjamin Franklin reading draft of the Declaration: “Hmm . . . I don’t know Tom . . . sounds a little pink to me!”)

Ben Franklin, the only president of the United States who was NEVER president of the United States. Really people 12 hours and no one’s posted this yet? Forcing me to delurk…grumble…don’ appreciate Firesign…grumble grimble…

I think it’s reasonable to debate the best method of engaging Limbaugh, but I disagree with the argument that he need not be engaged because he’s not a serious figure (which is how I would summarize DaKooch here).

Hopefully, some day the Limbaugh wing of the Republican Party will branch off like the Anti-Masons, Know-Nothings, Dixiecrats and George Wallace’s American Independent and just “fade away” like some bad dream

In fact, the reverse is happening. The non-Limbaugh wing of the Republican Party is disappearing. The argument that SEK addresses in this post is the dominant position of the Republican Party.

Shucks, I only know what I read in the papers. You figure Limbaugh will cede his bully pulpit to more responsible figures like, um, Dick Cheney or Newt Gingrich? Who exactly is the “respected intellectual” in the leadership of the Republican Party that you would have us pay attention to in lieu of Limbaugh?

Yeah, Limbaugh in the “bully pulpit”. Kinda gives an entirely new meaning to the term. I think the Limbaugh wing of the Republican Party would be the last people to adopt the term “intellectual”, “respected” or not and the Republicans haven’t had one, “respected” or otherwise since Bill Buckley, God bless his elitist bones.

In a Democracy I would submit you “pay attention” to those people who have interesting, or at least workable ideas and those, given there is always a “loyal opposition” who are amenable to reasonable discussion or compromise. The rest are best ignored.

As for the ’65 years’ idea (that events in 1953 are no longer relevant), it’s pretty rich coming from a faction whose history book consists mainly of WWII, with only one follow-up chapter (‘Reagan vs Stalin and his liberal hippie legions’).